"There's No Point In Having A Discussion!" | A Must Watch Heated Debate On Climate Change

saw the big big topic is of course the cost of energy the green agenda and indeed Net Zero and that is a massive massive issue so we have the labor party just uh last year announcing they were going to invest 28 billion pounds of taxpayers cash every year into the green investment into heading towards net zero which was a vast sum of our cash and yet this week on Friday morning all of a sudden Rachel Reeves is beginning to smell the coffee and realize that actually firstly we haven't got the cash and maybe looking at what's going on across the channel in the European Union maybe the direction of travel is slightly different so she's rowing back on that pledge well I'm delighted that we are joined by Michael Jacobs who's the professor of political economy at the University of Sheffield and a former advisor to Gordon Brown of the labor party Michael very good morning to you thanks for being with us so this was morning quite a significant shift of language from the shadow Chancellor on Friday morning it sort of slightly got lost in amongst all the other noise from the conservatives but what's your understanding of uh of what's going on in the labor party to make this uh it's a to row back from this previous investment pledge I mean some people are describing it as a flip-flop well you can understand why uh opponents of Labor are trying to characterize it that way but it isn't so labor is still committed to a very large investment program in green jobs green technologies Renewable Energy electric vehicles and so on so what Rachel readers announced is that it won't be a spending plan which has 28 billion pounds per year but will get to 28 billion pounds per year over the course of apartment so what would have been let's say 28 times four years of a parliament 112 billion might now be 80 to 90 billion so that's still a very very large commitment which is indicative of Labor's commitment to tackle climate change get to Net Zero a legal obligation on the British government adopted by the conservatives of course but the really important thing to say is why has this happened it's nothing to do with the labor party it's all to do with this mismanagement of the economy by the conservative government when the Rachel reads first made this pledge only two years ago September 2021 it cost the government one percent to to borrow money from the guilt markets it now costs four percent so it's not the same pledge to say We'll borrow 28 billion today of course not the same thing is to say and it will do what it was three uh two years ago and that's not because of anything that's happened in labor it's because the conservatives have some mismanagement economy is actually Michael interest rates Across the Western world have all increased they've increased in yes it's entirely about the fiscal rules which labor has and how much spending it's willing to do in relation to its fiscal rules so what's going on in the EU because there's quite a lot of adjustment going on within certain Nations uh within the EU we've got a number of them Italy in particular and also Germany and France getting very concerned about the impact of the ban on internal combustion engine cars looking to delay that looking to allow it for e-fuels it seems to me that there's quite a sort of a deferral process going on of various conditions and constraints within the EU and yet we're plowing on regardless with as you said legal commitment well I don't agree with you at all um delayan has announced that Europe will be not just committed to the same 55 reduction uh by 2030 and then Net Zero by 2050 that the UK is but that she will now have in the European Union a green industrial plan to match the Biden administration's inflation reduction act which famously is providing a huge degree of subsidy to Industries to invest in green technologies and the European Union is going down that route because it needs to compete with the us we're in a new world in which China is pushing ahead with its uh technological development it is supplying much of the world's solar power for example and the United States has has smelled the coffee if you like in your phrase has realized that unless they get onto this Net Zero bandwagon the jobs will all be in China and elsewhere let me just finish America said we need the jobs at home and now the European Union is going to do that and frankly if we are not very quickly uh onto this we are going to be falling behind so because the EU is looking to defer the gas boiler that plan uh and that's potentially being led within Germany uh heat pumps are are clearly losing support from people in these various Nations and they're looking to delay that it seems to me there's a a gradual Trend within the EU of saying actually this is economic Madness this is the wrong direction the cost of it is too high I would if that were the case uh why would Ursula vandaline have announced a new green European green industrial plan because because she's based in Brussels at the top of the tree but it's the politicians he's at the top of the Brussels tree but it's the it's the Nation member state themselves it's Germany and Italy that are saying otherwise really Richard it's really important that your listeners understand the European system that we've left she is at the top of the government's tree she represents all the national elected governments and they make the decisions it's just a myth that Brussels a nameless set of bureaucrats make the decisions in the European Union they don't they are made by the assembled leaders of the member states of which we used to be one we are no longer and she represents them they're amazing they're made by the commission they understand by the MEPS but the point is it's the individual nation states that are rowing back on the commitments that have been made I just genuinely don't see this what I see are country is pushing ahead in much more difficult circumstances now do you have to adjust things as Rachel Reeves has done when the economic circumstances are worse of course you do we've had a massive energy so it will therefore say we should be finished let me finish otherwise there's no point in having a guess okay that would be irresponsible for any government to say the world is exactly the same as it was two years ago so we're going to do it so you accept we should defer as well so you have to check so you would accept that in terms of here in the UK we should follow the suggestions in the in some of the European countries that we should defirm the Ice uh car ban Car Sales ban from 2030 and we should defer the gas boiler ban here in the UK which is what's being suggested in Europe to adjust happens we don't have a gas boiler ban we we have a we have a ban on the sale of new gas boilers from about 2013 there's a suggestion that might be delayed from 2035 so yes we do actually have a a future yeah a gas boiler ban now what we have it's on the EDF website Michael you can't lie to my listeners no no we're nobody is Banning gas boilers we are trying to shift to a new so everybody who's got a current gas boiler you can keep your gas boiler until it until it uh conks out and then you can't another one dude there is a plan that when you buy a new one after 20 it'll be in the early 2030s possibly as late as 2035 and the government will encourage you to move to a to a heat pump or two or two biogas uh some kind of biofuel so yes but it's not a bad on gas boilers lots and lots of people spoilers and you can't put you can't put them in existing homes but let me ask you so Richard let's let's just be be honest alarm absolutely this is absolutely transformation we have to do because why do we have to do it why do we have to do it difficult the Technologies are getting cheaper but we have to manage all of these things nobody said this was going to be easy and why do we have to do it is we have to look after the planet so that our children do not live in an uninhabitable world and that's the priority so so let's just let's just let's pick up on that because we hear all these forecasts of catastrophic doom and there's an emergency I just play a related clip from Al Gore back in 2009 14 years ago some of the models suggests to Dr maslowski that there is a 75 chance that the entire North polarized cap during summer during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within the next five to seven years foreign but the reality is for example Arctic that will happen this year I Know Arctic sea ice I've checked it out uh on the on the data from the uh from the sea ice data center Arctic sea ice is now back at 2004 levels these forecasts from these catastrophibors are completely wrong let's look at a tweet from Greta tunberg back in about 2016 or 18 it was warning that uh we'll stop unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years Humanity will stop this is complete garbage that is being spelled yes uh so that that whatever if that was a true quote uh that was obviously silly nobody no top climate scientist was saying that so the interesting thing about the one that you chose and obviously you you've selected one particular uh forecast is that Arctic sea ice is now likely to be lost during the summer months altogether and that was actually something that came out back to levels of 20 years ago the direction of travel is the variable it's going in the other direction no it's literally it's the Arctic sea ice is variable according to the different patterns of weather that we get but we are we've seen huge amounts of melting and we are on course to have uh many years not every year many years where there is no art to uh sea ice all you need to do is ask the uh the companies that are now running tours literally you can get a cruise now through the Arctic sea ice um and uh uh now because they are so confident that that it won't be there so these predictions have been a bit slower to happen in some cases in some cases so the producers and the data shows in the last four years from the 2019 low it's increased Richard science is uncertain but we're told we have to follow the science no nothing's like look at if you look at the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is the yes let me finish the point otherwise there's no point in having a discussion if you look at what they say every statement they make they say we have high confidence medium confidence or low confidence in that statement they are scientists they look at the evidence they look at the projections in their models and then they work out how confident they are and they always say so they always acknowledge the uncertainty so many of the things that they are saying now they are saying with very high confidence that we are running into a world that will be desperately desperately desperately difficult to live on and if we don't do anything about it it will get worse and worse that's the most I'm so glad you raised that because actually I have Michael read the ipcc reports page 39 Clause D 1.4 if we get to Net Zero tomorrow how long does it say before the rate of level of rising of sea level will stop using Net Zero tomorrow well everyone's proposing to try and get it as soon as possible no but no what they say what they say is tomorrow no answer the questions just just answer the question Michael that I've asked you you can't come on a show and fail to answer the questions just give your give your demise or do you not want to give the answer because it's embarrassing to your cause I'm just trying to give your listeners what's the answer Michael what is the answer information nobody is saying we get to Net Zero tomorrow it's 20 50. great look when we get there in 2050 how long will it take according to the ipcc that you clearly adore how long will it take for the rate of sea level rise to stop how long will it take Michael such emotive language I don't adore it I try and listen to what incredibly Well it Well researched sciences and how long do those incredibly well-researched clever scientists Say it'll take for the sea level rise rate to stop after we get to Net Zero in 2050 how long time because of the last change that we're experiencing today record temperatures all these extreme weather events these extraordinary fires in Canada which are now causing people to which happen every year in Canada answer the question don't divert it don't what about it answer the question the question the question is how long will it take according to the ipcc well-researched clever scientists a long time right I'll tell you the answer I'll tell you the answer because you obviously don't know the answer is well then read the report Michael well because I read it it says with high confidence that you referred to between 200 and a thousand years this is an absolute nonsense we'd be better to adapt rather than to try and mitigate the unmitigatable did you say this was when they see it occurring is when it would end no no that's not what it says what I said is to give your your viewers what's the fact the fact is say it straightforward I will tell you that the rate of sea level rise will not change for between 200 and a thousand years they do say that I'm encouraged to say they say that with high confidence hang on the rate of sea level rise so you mean the speed at which so you acknowledge that the sea level is rising so what you're looking at is that when it starts to slow down the truth is the truth is you don't so do you acknowledge you don't you don't like the uncomfortable fact that we'd be better to would be better to adapt Michael than to mitigate excuse me you've highlighted a fact but we're not quite sure what this fact is are you saying that you're acknowledge sea levels are rising yes absolutely I'm only slow down everybody and how much is how much is sea level rising per year how much is sea level rising per year they're not Rising does it how long is how much is sea level rising in the UK per year Michael at the moment very little right so your accept is very little the ipcc accepts that it won't make much difference if we get to nearest between 200 and a thousand years wouldn't we be better to invest a little bit in some sea level defenses rather than trying to stop the Unstoppable slow down for between 200 and a thousand years that means that the rate is still Rising doesn't it yes but you've just admitted you've just admitted that sea level is rising very very little I'll tell you the answer because you don't seem to know many answers it's between one and a half and two and a half millimeters a year that's two and a half centimeters do you not see a decade do you not do you not see all these extreme weather events occurring with much greater frequencies you clearly deluded from the data Michael the data absolutely shows for example there is no increase there is no increase in major or hurricanes in the last 100 years you focused on the slowest of all the impacts which is sea level rise we've always known that that is the slowest of all the impact why don't we pick the ones that are already happening the increased frequency of forest fires of droughts of hurricanes of cyclones and of extreme temperatures do you agree that those were having more of those because they're no because no I don't because I'm looking at the graph are you do you agree I'm looking at the graph of foreign [Music] if you look at the graph of Canada forest fires in the last 43 years since 1980 every single year millions of hectares are get burnt in Canada in thousands and thousands of forest fires this happens every single year there's no increase in the number of hurricanes in the last 50 to 100 years the truth is the data doesn't support what you're saying well why is it that 99 more than 99 of all scientific papers on climate change say that it is why is it that you who are not a trained climate scientists think that you know that I'm so glad you raised that you're referring to the University study the data and have said I'm so glad you raised that because what you're referring to is that Richard that only you know this on all the climate scientists don't uh what about the Thousand clients because there's about a thousand plus experts and scientists wise people an organization called the uh which is they came up with the world's uh climate declaration it's an organization called Clinton many many experts within who actually support the position that I've just written for climate scientist in that group uh I haven't got the listing phones so in fact when you say Michael you don't have the knowledge about whatever the 97 figure you just used I know who supports your own case there are thou there's a list of over a thousand people a thousand and there are thousands and thousands of climate sizes largest in that group Professor either Giver from the USA Professor Gus burkhout Dr Cornelius these are all lots of experts in a variety specialism the lots of experts who've put forward they are the ambassadors of the world climate declaration isn't the reality that it's good to debate this thing isn't the reality you that people on your on on your side of the bay you want to shut down but the facts are is it but every Richard why is it that every country in the world is going down this path it's not the UK it's not EU it's not even all of us and the US it's China it's India It's Brazil and all of the Africa and we're not trying to do concerned about this because that's what the science says only you who think you know better than every government in the world why is it that China are building coal-fired power stations as we speak in order to produce cheap fossil fuel energy why is it that China haven't legally signed up to Net Zero amounts of solar and wind power they are making vast amounts they're actually one of the biggest countries in the world that is for sure but the reality is they are they have a hugely growing money exactly with cheap energy but much of it is solar and wind with with cheap energy using coal and youth coal-fired power stations and they haven't legally signed up to Net Zero for 2050 by the way they've said they might move towards it 10 or 20 years later but it's not a binding commitment India said 2070. these nations they're looking look we're all looking to reduce emissions they're not foolish enough to legally commit and impoverish their economy cause the problem the problem has been caused China scores part of the problem India is called none of it because its emissions a bit too low so where's the problem have the problem the problem has been caused by developed economies which have been industrializing for 200 years we didn't know we were causing the problem uh we represent one percent of emissions Michael finish it's the fossil fuels that we have burnt over 200 years of industrialization that have caused the problem by filling the atmosphere so it's understandable that poorer countries want to grow want to improve their incomes but they are also on this path for Net Zero the whole world is rigid it's only you and a few people who deny the climate science who think that you know better than every government in the world and it really is rather extraordinary that's extraordinaries you have the knowledge that all of these governments and all of these scientists don't have I'm looking lots of other scientists who've got a very very different View and I'm saying we should have a proper grown-up debate without them we do every year to debate this is this what is this you're trying to deny the debate because you're claiming that it's fast you're claiming that I'm the only person that's denying this when I put you the facts to you about what the ipcc report says you actually don't seem to rather like it Michael unfortunately time time is I'm not liking it but Richard I don't like understand science do you like this is about I understand I understand what I read in the ipcc reports science is about the evidence we have so it's not a question of liking it or not you're entitled to your own views absolutely and the evidence your title to your own facts and actually also remember that remember Michael which comes from science yes and and this science there's no such thing as the science there are signs who challenge each other 100 of all scientific papers on this subject that is not the case and again that is not the case you're referring to the Cook analysis from 2013 when they were asked how many of those papers said that actually uh human and humans were inducing global warming two-thirds of the papers two-thirds of the papers said actually they didn't have a view as to whether or not humans were causing uh the majority of global warming you're referring to you're referring to about 97 of just over 30 percent the facts are important indeed Michael we've got to go to a break but I'm so glad that you've come on we've had an energetic debate debate is good it's important but some people want to shut it down I think it's important thank you very much Michael Jacobs professor of political economy at the University of Sheffield it's title it's talk TV [Music] [Music] thank you

Channel: TalkTV

Views: 92,063

Keywords: debate, free speech, freedom of expression, live, live news, news, politics, talk radio, talk radio live, talk radio tv, talk tv, talk tv live, talkTV, talkradio, talkradio tv, talkradiotv, talktv live, uk, michael jacobs, richard tice

Id: 5x0BOe731R0

Length: 22min 35sec (1355 seconds)

Published: Sun Jun 11 2023